Friday, December 6, 2013

Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. case brief

Plaintiff disabled passengers filed a
class action against defendant foreign cruise line under Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.S. §
12181 et seq.Though holding Title III generally applicable, the
district court dismissed some claims but left others in place. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the
ADA was inapplicable to foreign vessels. The passengers sought
review.

CASE FACTS

Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. (D) is a company that operates cruise ships with its principal place of business in the United States.

Norwegian primarily advertises for its business in the U.S., and the majority of its passengers are U.S. citizens.

Under the terms of its tickets, disputes between passengers and Norwegian are to be governed by U.S. law.

However, despite all these contacts with the United States, most of Norwegian’s cruise ships are registered in other countries, flying foreign flags.

In 1998 and 1999, Spector (P), a disabled person, and other disabled persons (all of which were U.S. citizens) booked cruises on two of Norwegian’s ships: the Norwegian Star and the Norwegian Sea.

Both of these ships were registered in the Bahamas.

Spector brought a class action suit on behalf of all disabled persons similarly situated seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that Norwegian charged them higher fees and surcharges than other passengers, required them to travel with a companion, reserved the right to remove them from the ship if necessary for the “comfort” of other passengers, prevented them from enjoying all the amenities of the ships, and refused to make structural accommodations to the physical layout of the ships, including the safety barriers, for the purpose of making them more accessible to persons with disabilities.

Spector alleged that these actions violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The United States court of appeals dismissed the claim on the ground that general statutes do not apply to foreign-flag vessels in United States territory absent a clear indication of congressional intent.

Inter alia, the Supreme Court held that although the statutory
definitions of "public accommodation" and "specified
public transportation" did not expressly mention cruise ships,
the cruise ships in question clearly fell within both definitions
under conventional principles of interpretation.

The "clear
statement rule" demanded a clear congressional statement, not
for all applications of a statute to foreign-flag vessels, but only
those applications that would interfere with the foreign vessel's
internal affairs.

This did not mean the clear statement rule was
irrelevant to the ADA, however.

If Title III by its terms imposed
duties that interfered with a foreign-flag ship's internal affairs,
the lack of a clear congressional statement could mean that those
specific statutory applications were precluded.

No comments:

Post a Comment

ShareThis

.

I have often tried to make the cases available as links in case you are a student without a textbook.

All the information on this site is constantly updated and edited. Furthermore, if you have any outlines you want to share, so that others, free of charge, may benefit, please send those to be posted here. Likewise, if you have case briefs you would like to share, please send them to [email protected].

Please keep in mind that this site makes no warranties as to the accuracy of the cases listed here or the current status of law. These cases are derived from class notes and laws change over time. If you have any questions about these materials, or any other legal questions, you should consult an attorney who is a member of the bar of the state you reside in.